This comment will get deleted, but the owner of channel will see some of it, and this is something that the exact opposite is actually still taught in every public school today. They still teach about plagiarism, like it's 1970, never ever make mentioning of fair use. I added it to a blackboard of an outline of what plagiarism is at my daughters school, would have loved to see the teachers reaction as she hurriedly erased it the next day. Some teachers don't even know the 47 year old law exists! This platform and a few others do everything in it's power to capitalize off the ignorance of it all, (shorts are all transformative music videos btw, think of the revenue they have earned from us all- they are sharing it all aren't they? head nod!) and it carries the noise incorporated on its shoulders, throwing money at each other back and forth like a giant money ball keep away, always making sure to rip it out of the creators hands and just dangle it in front of them, through appeal after appeal, counter notification after counter notification and after a while they just stop following their own protocols, federal and state laws and just do whatever, because no one but us checks them on the law itself. They run up a 30 day appeal to 220 days, so we take the video down and reload it and win after 7 appeals in a 4 appeal process. They lie and say due to medical misinformation and community guidelines that an actual recorded tv news public occurrence , can not be shared. They start flagging non copyright music from 7 years ago for copyright. They reject counternotifications as many as 20 times, each rejection can give you up to 30 days with a strike, (we have had over 30 strikes so far) so... that's less traffic while you wait in appeal ... because they closed the gates to everyone coming to your channel so your channel gets *BLOCKED*. Then they Delete your comments, then they delete your replies back to your comments on your own channel, then they block community posts and your replies to comments in there, then they block your viewers comments from you, Then they make random with draws from your account earnings, then they fudge your analytics , then they fudge your likes and view numbers, Then they lie for music companies saying that a company has filed a takedown notice, when republic network had not, and did not have records of it, but then the network steps in and says ah yeah, no such thing as fair use, you didn't ask us permission. If you look up fair use on the net the very definition says you don't have to ask for permission, if you know the law. Seems to me, I'm the only one that understands the way it has been written. Or maybe I don't? The way I see it and have experienced it the seven years I have been a creator for three yt channels, yt does what ever they want, and so should the rest of us. I just had republic network try to tell me that even though I transformed a song I used, it was still their song, and it doesn't matter how I transformed it, after they told me they hadn't claimed the song and had not filed a claim since January. Right now at this very moment I am about to loose my channel because two *non copyright songs were flagged for copyright* and keep getting fair use rejections, (main reason I started using popular music in first place, if I have to appeal may as well be for the thing I really wanted to use, ya know?!) , you tube clearly abusing us, and then a music company trying to flag the twist, to a reaction video of you tube shoving our channel way down the search feed, even though we have the best analytics. *You tube abuse and mistakes playlist is a great one* and I encourage all copyright lawyers to go check it out and leave a comment on what they think. Oh the kicker we have hb20 freedom of speech law here in Texas. I have yet to find a lawyer that will help us fight for all of our rights to keep creating, and as you can see by the playlist we have overwhelming amounts of evidence, and that's why they are currently you tube criminals trying to collude to block our creations and truths we have recorded of them doing. Funny thing is , all the blocked stuff, is on my rumble channel 14 pages deep of videos.
It is persuasive to me that turning a soup product package image into a much wider comment on advertising and mid-century American eating/buying habits is a fairly big transformation. Taking an artist’s photograph and making only formal changes (color, lines) seems a lot closer to just copying. However, seeing the large series Warhol created (of which the cover they used is just one) gives me pause. Also, the Warhol image is dang good. But the average observer would probably say it was copied. Is the (very cool) Goldsmith photo unique in capturing that pose or look in Prince, or are there a lot of other photos around that are pretty much the same face, angle, etc?
@@katherineabrams3478 Thats a good point, but it is, at the end of the day, a subjective opinion. When it comes to copyright infringement - the simple question is whether or not he copied something, which Warhol did. His painting turned into a 'wider comment', sure, but had that not been the case then he would've been sued already (and that's my subjective opinion)! We could both be right 🤝
@@argonymus2980 Warhol and the Pop cohort introduced a one-eighty from the spiritual and high-intellectualism splatterings of Pollock, scratchy Robert Motherwell, Clement Greenberg et al directly to the banal. Perhaps mid-20th century United States didn't want to import it's visual esthetics anymore?
All the Warhol add to do was sell his painting and donate the money to his charity foundation he would lose 10% it's better than given the money to these other bottom suckers
There was no charity foundation for most of his life. Warhol passed away February 22, 1987, the same year the Andy Warhol Foundation was established in New York.
@@rckadlt8 The foundations are usually started by surviving family, to er um, capitalize. They say a death of a performer raises the value of their work 90%, as well as the added interest in same works. Phucking pathetic.
Supreme Court protects photographers. Thank you Republicans. That why photographers love Republicans. Many of them support the case act. Thank you again
@@mauliebella if you can think of anything then this case which affects so many people deserve to be heard. It may not affect you directly but there are many artists whose living depends on the verdict.
Actually the talentless Warhol man, damaged the image of the exelent talented and good looking real artist called Prince. That's all he did. Warhol. Everything he touched, is that was beautiful, or not, became damaged and died. There's no art. The fact that there are still people profitong from his trash, and speaks volumes. There's a price for everything. He paid his own. There's no escape.
That is 100 percent correct. Love this. Thank you.
It's a painting of Prince's face, and Prince's face is not copyrighted. The painting isn't even a close copy of the photograph.
Great video, really informative and eye catching at same time.!
This comment will get deleted, but the owner of channel will see some of it, and this is something that the exact opposite is actually still taught in every public school today. They still teach about plagiarism, like it's 1970, never ever make mentioning of fair use. I added it to a blackboard of an outline of what plagiarism is at my daughters school, would have loved to see the teachers reaction as she hurriedly erased it the next day. Some teachers don't even know the 47 year old law exists!
This platform and a few others do everything in it's power to capitalize off the ignorance of it all, (shorts are all transformative music videos btw, think of the revenue they have earned from us all- they are sharing it all aren't they? head nod!) and it carries the noise incorporated on its shoulders, throwing money at each other back and forth like a giant money ball keep away, always making sure to rip it out of the creators hands and just dangle it in front of them, through appeal after appeal, counter notification after counter notification and after a while they just stop following their own protocols, federal and state laws and just do whatever, because no one but us checks them on the law itself. They run up a 30 day appeal to 220 days, so we take the video down and reload it and win after 7 appeals in a 4 appeal process. They lie and say due to medical misinformation and community guidelines that an actual recorded tv news public occurrence , can not be shared. They start flagging non copyright music from 7 years ago for copyright. They reject counternotifications as many as 20 times, each rejection can give you up to 30 days with a strike, (we have had over 30 strikes so far) so... that's less traffic while you wait in appeal ... because they closed the gates to everyone coming to your channel so your channel gets *BLOCKED*. Then they Delete your comments, then they delete your replies back to your comments on your own channel, then they block community posts and your replies to comments in there, then they block your viewers comments from you, Then they make random with draws from your account earnings, then they fudge your analytics , then they fudge your likes and view numbers, Then they lie for music companies saying that a company has filed a takedown notice, when republic network had not, and did not have records of it, but then the network steps in and says ah yeah, no such thing as fair use, you didn't ask us permission. If you look up fair use on the net the very definition says you don't have to ask for permission, if you know the law. Seems to me, I'm the only one that understands the way it has been written. Or maybe I don't? The way I see it and have experienced it the seven years I have been a creator for three yt channels, yt does what ever they want, and so should the rest of us.
I just had republic network try to tell me that even though I transformed a song I used, it was still their song, and it doesn't matter how I transformed it, after they told me they hadn't claimed the song and had not filed a claim since January. Right now at this very moment I am about to loose my channel because two *non copyright songs were flagged for copyright* and keep getting fair use rejections, (main reason I started using popular music in first place, if I have to appeal may as well be for the thing I really wanted to use, ya know?!) , you tube clearly abusing us, and then a music company trying to flag the twist, to a reaction video of you tube shoving our channel way down the search feed, even though we have the best analytics. *You tube abuse and mistakes playlist is a great one* and I encourage all copyright lawyers to go check it out and leave a comment on what they think. Oh the kicker we have hb20 freedom of speech law here in Texas. I have yet to find a lawyer that will help us fight for all of our rights to keep creating, and as you can see by the playlist we have overwhelming amounts of evidence, and that's why they are currently you tube criminals trying to collude to block our creations and truths we have recorded of them doing. Funny thing is , all the blocked stuff, is on my rumble channel 14 pages deep of videos.
Brilliant
Just do it, but not for money.
❤️
And I'm sure Andy Warhol paid Campbell for using their Soup Cans as his subject?
It is persuasive to me that turning a soup product package image into a much wider comment on advertising and mid-century American eating/buying habits is a fairly big transformation. Taking an artist’s photograph and making only formal changes (color, lines) seems a lot closer to just copying. However, seeing the large series Warhol created (of which the cover they used is just one) gives me pause. Also, the Warhol image is dang good. But the average observer would probably say it was copied. Is the (very cool) Goldsmith photo unique in capturing that pose or look in Prince, or are there a lot of other photos around that are pretty much the same face, angle, etc?
@@katherineabrams3478 Thats a good point, but it is, at the end of the day, a subjective opinion. When it comes to copyright infringement - the simple question is whether or not he copied something, which Warhol did. His painting turned into a 'wider comment', sure, but had that not been the case then he would've been sued already (and that's my subjective opinion)! We could both be right 🤝
@@argonymus2980 Warhol did transform the Goldsmith Prince image.
@@345mrse Of course he did! But how much did he transform the Campbell soup cans, except from three dimensional reality to two dimensional paint?
@@argonymus2980 Warhol and the Pop cohort introduced a one-eighty from the spiritual and high-intellectualism splatterings of Pollock, scratchy Robert Motherwell, Clement Greenberg et al directly to the banal. Perhaps mid-20th century United States didn't want to import it's visual esthetics anymore?
💜🐾
All the Warhol add to do was sell his painting and donate the money to his charity foundation he would lose 10% it's better than given the money to these other bottom suckers
There was no charity foundation for most of his life. Warhol passed away February 22, 1987, the same year the Andy Warhol Foundation was established in New York.
@@rckadlt8 The foundations are usually started by surviving family, to er um, capitalize. They say a death of a performer raises the value of their work 90%, as well as the added interest in same works. Phucking pathetic.
Awesome so now the prince family can sue goldsmith for copyright infirngement since he is profiting off of princes likness
We’re right on it. UA-cam should be next
Warhol was a hack. Silkscreening other people's work, regardless of licensing/payment, is simply cheap "art work".
😂 he has made more art then you ever will
Supreme Court protects photographers. Thank you Republicans. That why photographers love Republicans. Many of them support the case act. Thank you again
The Supreme Court could be doing something more important than this right now.
Like what do you have in mind
@@hazeladelaide234 anything else
@@mauliebella if you can think of anything then this case which affects so many people deserve to be heard. It may not affect you directly but there are many artists whose living depends on the verdict.
Like something political, Laura?
What a profoundly stupid comment
Actually the talentless Warhol man, damaged the image of the exelent talented and good looking real artist called Prince.
That's all he did. Warhol. Everything he touched, is that was beautiful, or not, became damaged and died.
There's no art.
The fact that there are still people profitong from his trash, and speaks volumes.
There's a price for everything.
He paid his own.
There's no escape.